photos photos, hee hee hee

[absis minas]

The color photos are non-standard production stills from a film shoot I was on. The director was not pleased. I felt really bad for messing up. But on the plus side - HEY! I have good photos!
I've never used color film before, only black and white, so my turn out rate, out of 300 photos in poor lighting conditions, was only about 50.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/06.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/02.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/04.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/05.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/07.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/08.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/13.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/11.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/16.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/soul37%20photo%20shoot/15.jpg

I believe that the rights for the photos belong to the director. Meaning, I can put them in a portfolio, but not sell them.

[absis minas]

Questions or critiques welcome!
I used 35mm Kodak TMAX 100
Oh, and not to sound pretentious, but these are finished works, and the rights belong to myself. I've noticed people signing their work here, and I dislike the way a signature makes my work look. I instead prefer to point the issue out.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/WheatGrowing.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/WingedRabbit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/WheatGrowingII.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/ThomasEdisontheFirstGreenPilotinthe.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/TheManInsidetheSugarballs.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/TheMailman.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/TheGreatAtlantic.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/MohammedLivesInsideMyMouth.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/MaryandSupervisoronCoffeebreak.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/LandscapeWithoutDr.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/FarmerBrownandtheInkpots.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/Eardrum.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/doll.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/Babel.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/ATelephoneCallFromInsideFoliage.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/low%20res%20photos/ACommercialforDishSoap.jpg

[samsite999]

hmm, ur lucky that black and white is such a forgiving mediam, its very dificalt to take a bad shot because there is less to deal with, its a shame the top once came out so bad, the noise levels on them are incredable (in a bad way) i take it these were film, not digital, i am supprised that this medeam would be used for such a occasion as you realy need instant feedback on what you shot....

[absis minas]

hmm, ur lucky that black and white is such a forgiving mediam, its very dificalt to take a bad shot because there is less to deal with,

Not to be pushy, but that is an incorrect statement. Saying black and white is easy, and that color is not, makes people whose interest lie in black and white out to be hacks.

The grain levels in the first set of pics comes from an 800 ISO Fujifilm. I understand what you say. But I like grain. I find it aesthetically pleasing.
I had this discussion with the director, and he stated that 800 ISO film would not have been necessary under the lighting conditions. He then went on to say that 200 ISO film would have worked perfectly.

If you know anything about lighting conditions and necessary film speeds, let me know.

Thank you for the response, though.

[samsite999]

im well aware of film iso settings and shutter speed and apture and all the other technical terms that go with photography. in my opinion i have always found B*W easier than colour, i am in now way saying that any one who enjoys taking photos in that media are "hacks" its just my opinion and im sorry if i have offended you which i clearly have. You your self have said that your not happy with your work
The color photos are non-standard production stills from a film shoot I was on. The director was not pleased. I felt really bad for messing up

lastly i feel that if this was for commercial purposes you should of made your director aware of the challenging light conditions and chose your equipment more wisely, a good DSLR will shoot well up to 1800 ISO which may have solved some of your problems, you have already stated that you like the greane, although its not quite the same digital noise and grane look slightly different. its all down to personal taste at the end of the day, i do genuinely like the B@W set at the end of the thread, but if i had taken the first set I wouldn’t be showing them off, i do applaud you for making public your mistakes though so that we can all learn from them.

sam

[absis minas]

The first set of photos are not mistakes, thank you.

It's not that I'm not happy with my work (I am, it's just that the ratio of good to bad was small - that and the fact that I spent $115 of my own money to develop the film).

When I asked if you knew about ISO and lighting conditions, I meant - would you ever shoot on 400 or 200 ISO film in a darkened office building? Considering what I was doing - production stills - that's a horrible idea. I wasn't trying to size you up or anything. It was an honest question. I asked one of my past photo teachers the same thing.

[mollyduker]

Honestly, I am not impressed by your work. All the color ones are fuzzy, blurred, grainy and lack a focal point. Some of them, the blurred affect is almost cool, but they need a focal point.Some of the black and white ones you try and hide a bland composition behind monochrome, which is a mistake because b and w exposes composition more. And some of them are confusing. Number 10 (I think I counted right, the field one) would have been better served in color. Number 4 is nice. Number 5 is sorta cool, but personally, i think that your reflection in the balls is distracting. Number 11 is very nice, with the clouds and trees adding to the field. Some of the smaller ones look nice but I can't see them at all.

If I had been shooting in that office, I probably would have chosen to use a film with a lower ISO (like 200 or 400) and a flash for some of them. Also, with a small aperature (like around 2 or 3) and using 400 film, you should be able to get clear ungrainy pictures in an office. Even if you like the grain, your director wanted less grain.

Samsite- I don't think b&w is a more forgiving medium. Especially intially as a photographer. With color you can use the color to aid your composition, and if colors are more vibrant or whatever, they can make a photo with bad composition or lighting good. However, with b& w you really have to focus on the composition, lighting, subject, etc.

[absis minas]

Using flash on a film shoot pisses everyone off because the flash of the bulb is often mistaken for a set light going kaput. You cannot use flash.

The lowest my apertue goes is 4. 400 speed film does not cut it in an office whose lights are almost all off.

What do you mean by "lack of focal point" and "hiding bland composition behind black and white"?
I can spot one that I have compositional issues with - the cattail/hotdog bun one.
I have a thing for leading lines, and if you can't make those out in the composition of my photos then I don't know what to say.

with b& w you really have to focus on the composition, lighting, subject, etc.

I'm going to niggle at that a bit...because it's a maxim.

Thank you for the feedback.

[mollyduker]

Lack of focal point- none of the color ones lead your eye to a place or give you a place to focus, probably because no one point is in focus. Similarly with the first one that says "interface", the one above "mocha", "mocha", and the last one. Where is my eye supposed to go? What do you want me to focus on, because its unclear.

Just because you have leading lines doesn't make it a good composition.

hiding bland composition- For example, the second b&w one, the composition isn't anything special, but it looks slightly better at first because it is b&w, but if you look at it for a while, you see that nothing is there. The last one is just bland clouds. etc

[Lauren Short]

first of all, i'm not going to come off so offensively like the others did, that's an issue this section of the forum has; many people see to group to particular tastes and anything outside of that set taste tends to be disregarded to the point of useless comments such as select comments above. But that's an entirely different story altogether...


Well I do agree with a few crits already given.

One: Focal point. I realise you have key elements we're meant to focus on in the compositions, the problem is the lack of focus on those elements. Just about every picture is blurry, which really hurts the photo. Make sure to spend a second or two more to ensure that you're focusing correctly, it can make or break pictures.

Two: Grain. I happen to like the grain, especially in the given lighting conditions, it helps to add a little drama and can be nice when done properly. Unfortunately the pictures tend to be out of focus, so it's hard to realize the grain as a reinforcing element in the picture and is misleading.

Three: Film speed. I do a lot of night photography, low light, man-made lights, lets just say the tripod and release cable are like extensions of my body now :P . But anyway, i tend to use Fuji Reala 100 speed film. "ISO 100 you say?!" yea ISO 100, and it works really well for what i do. Keep in mind, however, that I tend to take pictures with movement in them (usually lights from cars, etc) and it is a bit of a challenge to take stills shots, without movement, of subjects that tend to move a lot(such as people). If i were in your shoes i would use a tripod and see what comes up from 200 speed, just out of curiosity's sake. But in the given conditions ISO 800 is fine. You sacrifice color saturation for faster speed but nonetheless it gets the job done. Your photos work and honestly would be a lot stronger if you just took more time to adjust the focal point. My suggestion is if your shutter speed drops below 1/30 use a tripod, maybe even below 1/60 to be on the safe side. -NOTE- remember that even using ISO 100 film, I still get a lot of grain from my pictures, because that's purely the nature of low-light photography. you can either use a low ISO which requires longer shutter speeds (usually shots past 5-10 seconds develop a reasonable amount of grain and flaring of light) or use a higher ISO which inherently picks up grain and takes on a more muted color palette.


As for your black and white pictures; they're a bit small to judge for me. I do enjoy some of them such as the telephone poll, but make sure to watch that burning. Excessive burning becomes obvious and can turn a really great picture into a not so great picture. Also make sure to watch the compostion, the key is to have a dynamic focal point, otherwise it can become a bit boring. I always had trouble with that in black and white, and i still do these days, we can't always take amazing shots :)



hope this helps :teeth:

[jonton]

i disagree with alot in this thread but i wont go into it (i seem to disagree alot with you guys lol)

ill just go straight into what i think of the photos. firstly i think the black and white ones are excellent, i love them all. the color ones not so much, thats pretty much the first batch, as other say the motion blur is distracting but due to your conditions i understand, except the last one in the first batch is great, the expression on the guys face. hes rushing and gets a glance of you and you snap the shot and it looks so still in that busy moment. i like it.

the second batch, are just amazing to me due to the style i like. they really remind me of a 60's horror movie. all the grain softness and fuzzyness adds and plus the strange stuff you shot.

i would really love to see the first on in the second batch (with the tv) alot bigger, that looks likea really cool strange abstract photo

ones with the text "telephone network interface" and "interface" upside down, are fab again and these are the ones that stand out as 60's horror for me.

the eardrum as well, that just freaks me out. i like how youve took a photo that pretty much everyone takes like that in bw and add the most weriest thing.. a drawing of a eardrum. it strangly works and again i love this sort of stuff.

the other small one... with the feet standing on a chair? dam make this one bigger that again would be great to see bigger, im sure id say that would be ur best one if it was bigger.

the ones that dont work for me are your portaits(?) and your bw telephone pole and textures. this seems to be cause they lack compared to the others for me, youve sort of got your own theme going on and these ones dont fit it, as i would like to see more of this sort of stuff and not the 'nothing different from everyone elese' shots.

oo yeh and keep up the work and positng if you can, i really dig your work so far!
sorry due to this post being rushed and lazy.

[mollyduker]

I apologize if I was offensive. I tend not to make my opinions flowery and softer. you definately have a good start and some good stuff going. I was just picking out the stuff that wasn't so good.

[absis minas]

I apologize if I was offensive. I tend not to make my opinions flowery and softer. you definately have a good start and some good stuff going. I was just picking out the stuff that wasn't so good.

It's okay. I didn't expect people to be flowery and soft in their criticisms, but, then again, I DID expect people to be able to see what I was going for. If I came off as a bit insulted, it was for that reason.
For example - the second black and white one. Frame divided in two - right side has 3 spot-shapes that lead upward on a line on a light grey background. Left side is blacktop. The only thing that irks me is the hose.

injection223 - THANK you for the wonderfully valid and informative critique. My opinion of this place was about to turn 100% sour.

jonton - thanks.

Here are larger versions of the small pics.
The last one has a place in an animated pseudo documentary I'm working on (here are 3 finished concept art pieces and basic story information - http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73163)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/TheGreatAtlantic.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/Untitled-3copy.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/absis_minas/Babel.jpg

Go crazy on these as well, if you want. I like confrontation.

[Lauren Short]

quick question, are these silver prints? or are they digital? something about the excessive use of burning grabs my attention. It's both a good and bad thing.

[absis minas]

they're all silver prints.

my photo teachers in the past have stressed an importance on the negative - THEN making adjustments through dodging and burning. you know...never go completely black...you want to be able to see shadow details, zone system blah blah blah...etc etc...

i like burning because, for the ones i have posted, it adds. some of them are part of a series. the wire, moon, and cloudscape photo wouldn't have impact if i left the bottom section alone.

some Ansel Adams photos use extensive burning. at least...from what i can tell.

[Lauren Short]

good stuff :) yea ansel used a LOT of burning, even though he said he never did :P yea, might just be my personal preference. i do enjoy the composition of the tv and arms/hands. keep on posting